C43 / C63 old chestnut

[Barnowl1]

I beg forgiveness, cos I know this has been touched on before, but not by me and i‘m losing sleep on this. And when I do sleep it’s a nightmare that I’ve made the wrong choice.
I can get a nearly new C43 ( 20/21 ) very low mileage for the same price as a 3/4 yr old C63 with average ( possibly below average ) mileage. It won’t be my everyday car, cos generally I don’t really go places ( retired), so just a ‘toy’ and it Must be a cabriolet. So before you ask,……. no…..I don’t need either, but must have one. Consequently, running costs are not a real issue, but I’ve heard that the 63 can be a low as 12 mpg, which makes even a trip to the gym expensive. I’m not heavy on the right foot other than the occasional blip, and don’t expect to be chewing tyres. 43 looks more sensible and the 63 demonic.
So should I be sensible, or demonic. ?
As Shakespeare once said…”..cars maketh the man”…..!

 

[HB]

Demonic. The noise in the convertible even when just pottering about is mesmerising.
63.

 

[Stratman]

I’ve heard that the 63 can be a low as 12 mpg

The MB World track C63s get 6mpg, if that helps

 

[Jobsworth]

I had a pal with this conundrum last year. Had to be a cabrio. He was almost set on a 43, but had a brief moment of doubt. I let him borrow my 63. No going back! He’s now the proud owner of a brilliant blue cabrio c63. I serviced it for him last week. I’ve never seen a retired gentleman look so happy with his choice!

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

If it’s a play thing and running costs aren’t an issue then I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t go for the 63.

I would be surprised if a 63 would cost noticeably more to run than a 43, and it’s not like a 63 is an unusable monster, so get one bought and enjoy it.

Oh and don’t lose any sleep over it. There’s no bad decision here, just buy the one you like best and sleep easy.

 

[Skd884]

YOLO ( You only live once )

Treat yourself to a 204 6.3 c63 they are epic !

 

[Atavus]

If you want sensible, save more money and skip the AMG. Otherwise, do it properly and get the 63.

 

[SarahAnn200]

Why don't you test drive both and then decide?

 

[oldguy57]

I suspect that if you bought the 43, you'll always regret not getting the 63. Have both - an owner I know did that.

 

[Barnowl1]

63’s in the lead at the moment and was hoping it would go that way.
Autotrader Running costs for the 63 are as follows:
Urban. 23.5
Extra Urban. 39.2
Combined. 31
Whilst it’s not really an issue….. do these figures look realistic. I realise it’s all about the right foot….but overall are they close. ? ( during times of sensible driving).
Thnx for all your replies

 

[Jobsworth]

63’s in the lead at the moment and was hoping it would go that way.
Autotrader Running costs for the 63 are as follows:
Urban. 23.5
Extra Urban. 39.2
Combined. 31
Whilst it’s not really an issue….. do these figures look realistic. I realise it’s all about the right foot….but overall are they close. ? ( during times of sensible driving).
Thnx for all your replies

Yes. If you drive sensibly the economy is not shocking. Significantly better than the old m156. Mine, on a trip from my house to Dartford. The m23 was 50mph the whole length, smart works, the m25 was busy, but moving steady.

 

[nyssa7]

63’s in the lead at the moment and was hoping it would go that way.
Autotrader Running costs for the 63 are as follows:
Urban. 23.5
Extra Urban. 39.2
Combined. 31
Whilst it’s not really an issue….. do these figures look realistic. I realise it’s all about the right foot….but overall are they close. ? ( during times of sensible driving).
Thnx for all your replies

Doubt it but ready to stand corrected. Official figures for the AMG GT much the same, ooh it will do 30mpg I told the missus More like 21-22 driving normally, in fact make that abnormally as barely had the chance to use much throttle
last Saturday did an 80 mile round trip, about half on a speed restricted motorway and managed the dizzy heights of 27mpg, but seriouslu doubt I could improve on that
Thankfully I come from an era where V12 Jags struggles into double figures, and my R129 500SL was worse than the GT with nearly 200bhp less

 

[HB]

63’s in the lead at the moment and was hoping it would go that way.
Autotrader Running costs for the 63 are as follows:
Urban. 23.5
Extra Urban. 39.2
Combined. 31
Whilst it’s not really an issue….. do these figures look realistic. I realise it’s all about the right foot….but overall are they close. ? ( during times of sensible driving).
Thnx for all your replies

With all due respect, ignore everything regarding fuel consumption. If this is a factor you are considering buying a V8 AMG, it’s not the car for you. Buy a 220d.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

63’s in the lead at the moment and was hoping it would go that way.
Autotrader Running costs for the 63 are as follows:
Urban. 23.5
Extra Urban. 39.2
Combined. 31
Whilst it’s not really an issue….. do these figures look realistic. I realise it’s all about the right foot….but overall are they close. ? ( during times of sensible driving).
Thnx for all your replies

I really wouldn’t base you decision on fuel consumption. It will be worse than published and the additional cost won’t be material in the overall cost of buying and running the car.